Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Laura Perkins, took her truck to D to change the oil and rotate the tires. When she picked up her truck, she noticed that the tires had not been rotated. D moved the vehicle back inside and rotated the tires. Later in the afternoon she was traveling on Highway 59 when the left front wheel came off of her truck, crossed the center line, and struck a vehicle owned and operated by P, causing his vehicle to wreck. P sustained injuries. After the wreck, Perkins called D to report the accident. D sent representatives to the scene and provided Perkins with a rental car to continue her planned trip to Oklahoma. D then towed her truck back to their shop and had it repaired, all without cost to Perkins. P filed a complaint against D seeking damages for injuries sustained. P alleged that the accident was proximately caused by D’s negligence and asserted that D failed to properly rotate tires and failed to properly replace the lug nuts on the left front wheel of Perkins's truck. D filed a motion in limine requesting the exclusion of certain evidence under Rule 408. D sought to exclude 'evidence regarding settlement and matters relating to settlement.' The trial court denied D's motion. A jury trial was held. The trial court allowed P to introduce evidence of D's actions seeking to satisfy Perkins's complaint. P introduced evidence at trial that immediately after the accident, D employees came to the scene of the accident, provided a rental car for Perkins, and towed and repaired Perkins's truck. D had argued in a motion in limine that the introduction of such evidence would be in violation of Rule 408. The trial court allowed the evidence. The jury awarded P $135,000 in damages. D appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co